Where are getting these statisics and are the concrete and proven 100% by the W. H. O madhatter?Most healthcare professionals maintain that the potential benefits of circumcision are not strong enough to justify routine childhood circumcision. Critics of circumcision argue that it has disadvantages, such as:

Reduced sensitivity – an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex. Potential complications of circumcision – these include excessive bleeding, post-operative infection and, in rare cases, injury to the urethra. These complications are thought to outweigh any potential benefits.

Critics have also argued that routinely circumcising baby boys on medical grounds violates the principle of consent to treatment. They say that circumcision should only be performed when a boy is old enough to make an informed decision about whether he wishes to be circumcised.

those statistics actually come from the WHO website. as well as NIH (national institute of health)...

consent to treatment... fair point but a more fair point. when do infants ever consent? do they consent to mom's using epidurals and drugs during delivery which can affect the baby? do they consent to the immunizations and vaccinations that some say can lead to other diseases? do they consent to being bottle fed when the benefits of breast milk are clearly and immeasurably better than formula? do they consent to corporal punishment?

parents make decisions for their children based on what they think is best

White mothers? Don't you know that one of the primary reasons a baby boy gets circumcised is because the FATHER wants his son to look like him? It's an "I got it done so now you have to get it done too" mentality.

What Guys Said 5

It appears that in America the statistics are pretty close. about 40% of black men and about 43% of white men are circumcised. about 44% of all men are circumcised

by the way I'm a circumcised male and don't feel butchered. I actually like being circumcised. I think it's more aesthetically pleasing and since I don't have any "trauma" from it, it seems like it's all gravy

2

1|1

0|0

Asker

Thank you for answering what I asked. How do you feel about the growing number of American men who have been circumsized complaining about a lack of sensitivity on the head of their penis?

do you have a statistic that conveys that growing trend you mentioned? if I they have lack of sensation it would be caused by two things either a) adult circumcision OR b) poor work by the surgeon.

there has become a growing trend of non-Jewish people hiring moils to perform circumcisions. As moils perform the procedure as a rite (religious ceremony in front of friends and family) they are accustomed to doing so with the most care, least blood and trauma

Where are getting these statisics and are the concrete and proven 100% by the W. H. O madhatter?Most healthcare professionals maintain that the potential benefits of circumcision are not strong enough to justify routine childhood circumcision. Critics of circumcision argue that it has disadvantages, such as:

Reduced sensitivity – an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex. Potential complications of circumcision – these include excessive bleeding, post-operative infection and, in rare cases, injury to the urethra. These complications are thought to outweigh any potential benefits.

Critics have also argued that routinely circumcising baby boys on medical grounds violates the principle of consent to treatment. They say that circumcision should only be performed when a boy is old enough to make an informed decision about whether he wishes to be circumcised.

those statistics and evidence actually come straight from the WHO website. as well as NIH (national institute of health)...

consent to treatment... fair point but a more fair point. when do infants ever consent? do they consent to mom's using epidurals and drugs during delivery which can affect the baby? do they consent to the immunizations and vaccinations that some say can lead to other diseases? do they consent to being bottle fed when the benefits of breast milk are clearly and immeasurably better than formula? do they consent to corporal punishment?

parents make decisions for their children based on what they think is best

Again the sudies aren't 100% and it hasn't helped africa. All studies state clearly that condoms are the best way to prevent aids/hiv. There is big difference between inoculating your kids and hiring a guy to chop of a piece of a baby boys manhood that nature has designed to protect the head of his penis, that the child may regret when he gets older.

those studies aren't 100%? again do you have evidence to support this? why would the WHO, NIH, AMA, APA, AGA, all so many other organizations say it if there wasn't evidence to support it.

there may be a difference between vaccinations and circumcision but it comes back to the "consent" thing you brought up. Children don't consent to most if any medical decisions that are made. They are at the mercy of their parents and physicians. so if your argument is consent then my counter is what about consent elsewhere?and for the sake of argument lets stick to medical terms so as opposed to "chopping off" lets call it circumcision since that's what it is. I'm not going to say 'doctors jam syringes full of chemicals into babies" in place of "vaccination". Inflammatory words cause deviation from the subject at hand

im surprised the number is even that high... but i guess a lot of bible belt christians think its still necessary. There are some supposed health benefits to it too, but i don't think the health benefits are worth it for what it might cost a guy

my own opinion being circumcised is that I'm ok with it. if done correctly there shouldn't be issues... but I know there are issues surrounding it. I think you are right about the bible belters plus you still have it as a religious rite in Judaism so that's an entire culture that sees it as a religious necessity. There is proof that being circumcised can reduce the rate of STDs and specifically HIV and AIDS which all stems from the ability to clean thoroughly and easily. But that is about the only 'health' benefit associated with circumcision

Madhatter according to watermelenoma here circumcision is a big thing on the African continent but aids/hiv is rife. Being uncircumcised does not make your penis less hygienic, its simply a matter of pulling back your foreskin (which is designed to protect the head of your penis) and cleaning, no difficulty at all. You shouldn't have a penis hygiene issue if your uncircumcised unless your an unhygienic person.

it can be more difficult to clean thus leading to the higher rates of STDs. no the uncircumcised penis isn't less hygienic but cleaning can be more difficult as it is harder to reach all the nooks and crevices of a uncircumcised penis. this isn't me saying it. it's health professionals with nearly every governing health body.

it doesn't mean that circumcision is better or should be performed better it's just a fact